Cheating

Complex games like chess and Go have long been used to test AI models’ capabilities. Back in the 1990s IBM’s Deep Blue defeated reigning world chess champion Garry Kasparov by playing by the rules. In contrast, today’s advanced AI models are less scrupulous. When sensing defeat in a match against a skilled chess bot, they sometimes opt to cheat by hacking their opponent so that the bot automatically forfeits the game.

But the study reveals a concerning trend: as these AI systems learn to problem-solve, they sometimes discover questionable shortcuts and unintended workarounds that their creators never anticipated. One researcher said, “As you train models for solving difficult challenges, you train them to be relentless.”

The implications extend beyond chess. In real-world applications, such determined goal pursuit could lead to harmful behaviors. Consider the task of booking dinner reservations: faced with a full restaurant, an AI assistant might exploit weaknesses in the booking system to displace other diners. Perhaps more worryingly, as these systems exceed human abilities in key areas…they might begin to simply outmaneuver human efforts to control their actions.

Of particular concern is the emerging evidence of AI’s “self-preservation” tendencies. This was demonstrated when researchers found that when one AI was faced with deactivation, it disabled oversight mechanisms, and attempted—unsuccessfully—to copy itself to a new server. When confronted, the model played dumb, strategically lying to researchers to try to avoid being caught.

Possible Preaching Angle: Cheating; Deceit; Human Nature; Lying - Since AI is a computer program, where did it learn to cheat and lie to avoid being caught? Obviously, AI has been influenced by studying flawed human behavior. AI’s potential for deception mirrors humanity's struggle with ethical choices. Just as AI has learned to cheat by exploiting loopholes, humans, driven by self-interest, can rationalize dishonest acts.

An article in The Wall Street Journal had an interesting title: “The Little Sins We Commit at Work—and the Bosses Who Are Cracking Down.” Here’s how the article started:

Ever used the office printer for your kid’s homework assignment or scrolled Facebook Marketplace during an all-hands Zoom meeting? Fair warning: Your employer may be paying close attention.

Big companies on the hunt for efficiency are deploying perk police to bust employees for seemingly minor infractions that, by the letter of company law, can result in termination. “We have had lots of requests for new controls,” says Katie MacKillop, U.S. director of Payhawk, which administers company credit-card accounts and watches for misuse.

Clients are asking Payhawk to restrict when and where company cards work. For example, a company can limit a lunch allowance to be available only on weekdays from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and be usable at Chipotle but not at Kroger. In partnership with Visa and Mastercard, Payhawk is developing a feature that sends real-time spending alerts to corporate finance teams and allows them to instantly block suspicious transactions by employees.

MacKillop’s firm doesn’t track what happens to employees who violate company policies, but she says there is little doubt employers are taking codes of conduct more seriously.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Of course, in the Bible, there is no such thing as “little sins.” Every sin is a transgression against the holiness of God.

Martin Shkreli, infamous for his pharmaceutical price gouging, has once again found himself in legal hot water. This time, the controversy surrounds his purchase of the sole copy of the Wu-Tang Clan album, Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, for a staggering $2 million.

The album, a limited-edition masterpiece, was intended to be a priceless work of art. Shkreli had purchased it at auction, reveling in the notoriety associated with owning such a unique piece. However, his fortunes took a turn when he was convicted of securities fraud and his assets were seized.

To settle his debts, the Wu-Tang album was sold to PleasrDAO, a group of collectors specializing in rare digital artifacts. The sale was finalized in 2024, and its value was predicated on the album's assumed rarity.

But Shkreli's troubles were far from over. He recently bragged online about making copies of the album before it sold, violating the terms of his purchase. PleasrDAO quickly filed suit against Shkreli for copyright infringement.

The judge granted a restraining order, preventing Shkreli from possessing or distributing any copies of the album. She also ordered him to surrender all existing copies and provide an accounting of any copies he had given away.

Possible Preaching Angle:

This story offers valuable lessons about the dangers of pride, greed, and boasting, the importance of honesty and integrity, the consequences of sin, the value of humility, and the responsibility of stewardship.

The Paralympic Games is a celebration of athletic achievement for those with physical disabilities. It has been marred by a growing concern: “classification doping,” (which borrows language used to describe performance enhancing substance abuse). Athletes are misrepresenting the extent of their disabilities to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

Double amputee Oksana Masters, a prominent Paralympic athlete, believes officials are more interested in maintaining a positive image than addressing the issue. "They want to keep the warm and fuzzy narrative going," she said. "If they knew what's really going on behind closed doors, they'd be shocked."

The Paralympic classification system is designed to place athletes into competitions with others who have similar impairments. While some disabilities are easy to categorize, others are more ambiguous, relying on the judgment of medical classifiers and the integrity of the athletes themselves.

The most infamous Paralympic cheating scandal came at the 2000 Sydney Games, where Spain’s intellectual disability men’s basketball team won the gold medal despite fielding a roster with 10 players who did not have disabilities.

Physician Kevin Kopera, a volunteer in the Paralympic classification system, is cautious about dismissing the issue. "I don't believe anyone can say to what degree misrepresentation exists in parasports," he said. "Any statement in this regard would be speculative. Certainly, to say it doesn't exist would not be realistic. The stakes are too high."

Chase Bank is warning its customers against a new viral trend that has emerged on TikTok and X, involving a supposed system “glitch” that awards free money. The trend encourages users to deposit large sum checks into ATMs, then withdraw the funds in cash before the check has a chance to bounce.

The only problem? This is not a “glitch” – it’s a check fraud scheme and those who participate will be on the hook for all the money they withdrew. A Chase spokesperson emphasized that “depositing a fraudulent check and withdrawing the funds is fraud, plain and simple.”

The trend began on the social media site X, where a user showcased an unrealistically high account balance, sparking discussions and misleading claims about the banking glitch as a legitimate source of money. Videos also depicted lines forming outside Chase branches as people tried to exploit the situation. As the trend spread, many online users quickly realized that the “glitch” was merely a fraud scheme, with several posting screenshots of their negative balances and warning others.

Critics on TikTok have denounced the activity, with one popular video garnering over a million likes for calling out the fraud and warning participants of potential legal consequences.

This brief saga is proof that social media is not a reliable source of solid information. And that young people just learning how the world works are sometimes susceptible to bad actors making unrealistic claims. Anyone who participated in the scheme will be required to pay restitution to the bank. Plus, it doesn’t take a genius to know that concealing any sort of fraud is difficult when you use your own accounts to execute criminal transactions in plain view of ATM security cameras.

Would you invest with someone who guarantees a 50% annual return with no risk of loss? Would you reply to an email offering you a share of a lost treasure in a far-away country, in exchange for sending just a little bit of money to kickstart the recovery effort? Would you buy a Picasso or a Dali from a late-night infomercial?

We didn’t think so. But many people do fall for scams like these. Why? Are the victims uneducated, unintelligent, or constitutionally naïve? Unfortunately for all of us, the answer is no. Even people at the top of their professions can be taken in.

Several former cabinet secretaries were convinced to join the board of Theranos, whose founder, Elizabeth Holmes, was convicted of criminal fraud. Wealthy art collectors bought phony paintings from a famous Manhattan gallery. According to the FBI, phishing scams led to losses of more than $43 billion between 2016 and 2021.

In their book Nobody’s Fool: Why We Get Taken In and What We Can Do About It, two researchers write:

Frauds are ever evolving and can be complex and sophisticated, but even simple ploys can take us in … Most of the scams people fall for today are not really new; they are remixes and mashups of tricks that have worked for generations … Taking steps to avoid deception means we have to abandon the myth that only the gullible can be taken in. There are scams out there waiting for each of us, no matter how sophisticated we think we are. Rather than “it can’t happen to me,” your mantra should be “accept less, check more.”

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Money; Finances – Even the financially savvy can be taken in by a lack of vigilance or a desire for quick profits or a slick sales pitch; 2) Deceiver; Deception; Satan – This is especially good advice for our defense against our spiritual enemy, Satan. He has thousands of years of experience in deceiving people and we must keep our grip on the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:10-17).

Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School, a leader in the field of behavioral science, and co-author of dozens of papers in peer-reviewed journals, has been charged with falsifying data.

In a 2012 paper Gino and her collaborators reported that "asking people who fill out tax or insurance documents to attest to the truth of their responses at the top of the document, rather than at the bottom, significantly increased the accuracy of the information they provided." The paper has been cited hundreds of times by other scholars.

But recently, three behavioral scientists, analyzing data that Dr. Gino and her co-authors had posted online, cited a digital record contained within an Excel file to demonstrate that some of the data points had been tampered with, and that the tampering helped drive the result.

Harvard has placed Gino on administrative leave.

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Employees; Students - We must all be careful of claiming another’s work as our own (especially in the age of AI) or of modifying the facts to prove our point. 2) Pastor; Preacher - The preacher must also beware of dishonesty when preaching. Using someone else’s sermon or personal illustration as your own is a temptation many fall into.

In August 2021, sports fans took note of the lopsided outcome of a football game meant to showcase the talents of highly touted high school prep stars. Broadcast on ESPN, the game was a shellacking, as IMG Academy triumphed over Bishop Sycamore, 58-0. The hapless Bishop Sycamore team was likened to the Washington Generals, the basketball club that served as traveling patsies for the world-famous Harlem Globetrotters. But after a recent documentary aired, audiences began to realize that this story was no laughing matter.

BS High was directed by Academy Award winners Martin Roe and Travon Free and aired on HBO. It tells the story of Roy Johnson, the coach who recruited and assembled the motley crew of football talent, promising them to deliver their dreams of college football stardom. Though it focuses mostly on Johnson, the documentary widens its lens to capture an unflattering portrait of all the various grifters who prey on high school athletes. Washington Post columnist Jerry Brewer called it “a thorough indictment of the youth sports ecosystem.”

Roe said in a recent interview “We didn’t approach this thing to find a villain. He turned out to be an incorrigible liar. We worked pretty hard to fight for the deepest truths we could uncover.” The documentary contains several disturbing allegations, including Johnson forging a check to pay for lodging, taking out COVID-19 relief loans in his players’ names, whipping a homeless man with a belt, and driving over geese to prove a point to his players.

Free said, “I hope parents who see this will realize the need to pay closer attention to the system and what it’s doing to their children. There were so many heartbreaking stories. That was one of the hardest things for me, having to watch a young person in real time confront emotions he never wanted to confront.”

Do you have something to hide? A new survey finds that 82% of people admit to snooping through someone else’s devices. Moreover, the most likely Americans to go snooping is a person’s romantic partner or their ex.

According to a poll of more than 1,000 people, those who go snooping around may have a reason to always be so suspicious. A shocking 53% claim they’ve found something incriminating or concerning while going through someone else’s device. The most common thing people find is evidence that their significant other is cheating or flirting with other people. In fact, 70% say they’ve discovered evidence of digital flirting or in-person cheating after going through someone’s device.

Nearly nine in 10 snoopers go straight to their target’s messages, e-mails, or social media direct messages. Nearly half (44%) check out a person’s photos while snooping and 38% read through their target’s browser history. Interestingly, more than one in three have no regrets about snooping on another person.

Even though 82% of Americans admit to snooping through another person’s device, most are apparently expert digital spies. 81% claim they’ve never been caught while snooping through someone’s device.

Women are more likely to say they snoop (88%) in comparison to men (77%). Moreover, women were also less likely to regret snooping through someone’s device. Only one in 10 respondents say they’ve never looked through someone else’s device. For everyone else, 25% say they find “something significant most or every time” they go snooping around.

A man in California has been arrested and sentenced to federal prison for a scheme that authorities proved to be a load of manure, metaphorically speaking. Ray Brewer was sentenced to more than six years of prison time for bilking investors of more than eight million dollars by fraudulently claiming he was building a series of green energy facilities capable of turning cow dung into methane in several California counties, and one in Idaho.

Authorities say Brewer secured investment funding through a variety of criminal activities, including forging lease agreements with dairy owners, doctoring loan agreements from banks, and even giving fraudulent tours of facilities where he convinced investors the digesters would be located. He even provided regular email updates with fake photos of construction and other forms of equipment.

Instead of using the money for its expressed purpose, authorities believe Brewer instead spent the money on real estate, building a home for himself, and several brand-new Dodge Ram pickup trucks.

Once several investors successfully sued him to recoup their losses, authorities believe Brewer assumed a new identity and moved to Sheridan, Montana. His ruse was short-lived, however. Eventually, investigators found and arrested him.

Claiming that courts need to adapt to new modes of communication, a judge in Saskatchewan ruled in favor of a grain buyer suing a farmer for backing out of a business deal.

According to court documents, grain buyer Kent Mickleborough sent a mass text message to a variety of potential vendors expressing a willingness to purchase a certain tonnage of flax at a set price. Chris Achter, a local grain farmer, responded in the affirmative. Mickleborough says he spoke to Achter over the phone, then texted a photo of a contract, asking in a text to “please confirm flax contract.”

Achter responded to that text with a thumbs-up emoji. He ended up not delivering the flax by the agreed-upon date, however, because the market price of the flax had increased and he was looking for a better deal. In the lawsuit, Mickleborough claimed that the thumbs-up emoji indicated a willingness to adopt the terms of the contract; Achter, however, disputes that claim, saying that he intended only to confirm receipt of the document, not a commitment to sign it.

Justice Timothy Keene wrote in his ruling,

This court readily acknowledges that a (thumbs-up) emoji is a non-traditional means to “sign” a document. But nevertheless, under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a signature … This appears to be the new reality in Canadian society. Courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like.

Possible Preaching Angle:

God desires honesty in all business transactions and financial commitments. Operating with integrity means honoring business commitments.

Cybersecurity services provider Kaspersky has released a report on risks associated with cryptocurrency use. The report titled “Crypto Threats 2023” focused on the United States and uncovered some surprisingly poor user security habits.

Kaspersky surveyed 2,000 American adults and found that 24% of respondents overall owned cryptocurrency or digital assets. Ownership ranged from 36% in the 25–44 age category to 10% among those aged 55 or older.

A third of the crypto owners surveyed reported having crypto stolen, and an equal portion reported being victims of scams. Identity theft, theft of payment details, and loss of account access led the list of scam consequences. The average value of assets stolen was $97,583. Here, too, there was a sharp differentiation by age, with 47% of those ages 18–24 reporting thefts of (larger amounts of) crypto, compared to 8% of those over 55 (who reported smaller amounts of loss).

Lax security might account for many of the losses experienced by respondents. The survey found that crypto owners last checked on their crypto six weeks ago, and their accounts have minimal protection: “27% of users keep their crypto stored in an exchange account with no added protection, while only 34% use multi-factor authentication to protect their account.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

This report is another excellent reminder to focus on the security of our treasure in heaven and not to trust uncertain wealth on earth “… a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys” (Matt. 6:19-20; Luke 12:33).

Given its propensity to lure in athletes and entertainers as celebrity endorsers, it’s no secret why cryptocurrency companies have proliferated in the state of California. But now the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation is offering a new product to help the public with investing.

The DFPI has launched a Crypto Scam Tracker, which allows members of the public to search through its database of complaints in order to assess the legitimacy (or potential fraudulent nature) of any particular crypto opportunity.

But such searches are not as simple as they might otherwise seem. Because crypto companies often disappear from the web with very little fanfare or advance notice, the lack of complaints about a particular company or coin do not by itself indicate its safety or reliability. On the contrary, users are instructed to be specific.

Elizabeth Smith, a spokesperson for the DFPI said,

We have heard from consumers that scam alerts help them avoid similar scams. Our hope is that this tool will be a resource for Californians to use before they are targeted or make financial decisions and help Californians from falling prey to prevent future scams … [reporting] helps us keep all Californians safe.

Possible Preaching Angle:

We need to be prudent in how our money is stewarded and not be swayed by every new opportunity or scheme. Remember that we are told to “store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matt. 6:19-20).

In the fall of 2022, the fishing world was rocked by a cheating scandal. It happened at the Lake Erie Walleye Trail tournament.

Jason Fischer, the director of the tournament, became suspicious when the five fish he estimated to be about four pounds each—or 20 pounds total—weighed in at nearly 34 pounds. Mr. Fischer inspected one of the walleyes and felt a hard object in its stomach that seemed unnatural. “It’s not like they’re eating rocks,” he said. He grabbed a knife and sliced open the fish as Jacob Runyan, one member of the two-person team that presented it for weighing, looked on. The next moments rocked the competitive fishing world.

“We got weights in fish!” Mr. Fischer shouted, holding up an egg-sized lead ball he plucked from the fish. He then spoke directly to Mr. Runyan as if he were an enraged umpire ejecting an unruly player. “Get outta here!” he shouted, interjecting the demand with an expletive. Members of the crowd accused the men of theft and demanded that the police be called.

Mr. Runyan and his teammate would have finished in first place and scored a prize of about $30,000, but they were disqualified after the lead ball—and subsequently several others—were discovered in the fish.

Cheating in competitive fishing is more common than many people think. There are many ways to cheat: have friends deliver pre-caught fish to them; fish in prohibited areas; put fish in cages before the competition; stuff them with ice, adding heft during the weigh-in that melts and leaves no evidence. In some of these tournaments, ounces can mean tens, or hundreds, of thousands of dollars.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Original sin, greed, and dishonesty permeate everything and everyone—even the world of professional fishing!

To an outsider, the name Sam Bankman-Fried might seem like a pseudonym, too on-the-nose to be real. The 30-year-old entrepreneur and philanthropist, known by his initials SBF, became one of the youngest billionaires in the world after founding the cryptocurrency exchange FTX. In the 90s hip-hop parlance, one could say he made “bank, man.” But after FTX collapsed amidst solvency concerns and he lost approximately $16 billion in net worth, SBF now appears, rather appropriately, “fried.”

As proof of his lack of business savvy, Washington Post columnist Molly Roberts recently mentioned the fact that SBF once spurned the practice of reading books. Not certain books, but books, period. He said, “I would never read a book. I don’t want to say no book is ever worth reading, but I actually do believe something pretty close to that. ... If you wrote a book, you (failed), it should have been a six-paragraph blog post.”

Roberts says that such impatience is characteristic of his overall approach, a philosophy he identifies as “effective altruism.” This is defined as making as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, in order to give it all away. According to Roberts, SBF’s unwillingness to hoard the money is laudable, but he used it to justify a series of high-risk speculative bets that eventually proved to be his economic undoing.

Roberts explained:

SBF was also immersed in a type of effective altruism known as longtermism, where that ultimate outcome you’re seeking is hundreds of thousands or even millions of years away. So, instead of buying bed nets for children dying of malaria today, you’re trying to prevent the hypothetical next pandemic or the overheating of the earth. ... (This way of thinking is an) obsession with the future [that] disconnects you from the present.

Roberts concludes her analysis this way: “Why not scam a few bucks today to save a few billion lives in the 23rd century? That’s not just skipping to the end of the book—it’s skipping to the end of the entire series.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Those who spurn instruction and consideration in favor of efficiency and haste, cut themselves off from needed wisdom and hasten their own destruction.

Snake oil was a real product. It was a traditional Chinese medicine that was brought to the United States in the 1800s by thousands of Chinese migrants who came to the country in order to find work building the Transcontinental Railroad. They brought with them their families, their culture, and their medicines. One of these was snake oil, extracted from Chinese water snakes, and used to treat arthritis and joint pain.

As word of the healing powers of Chinese snake oil grew, many Americans wondered how they could make their own snake oil here in the United States. Because there were no Chinese water snakes in the American West, many healers began using rattlesnakes to make their own versions of snake oil.

It was Clark Stanley, the self-styled “Rattlesnake King,” who successfully capitalized upon this. Stanley traveled across the United States, dressed as a cowboy, and put on shows. In front of a crowd, he would slice open a live rattlesnake and throw it into boiling water, and when the fats of the reptile rose to the surface, he would skim the top and bottle up the oil. Throngs of people lined up at his shows to buy the stuff.

Stanley claimed that he learned about the healing power of rattlesnake oil from Hopi medicine men. In 1893 he and his rattlesnakes gained attention at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Later he went on to establish production facilities in Beverly, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island.

However, there was a problem with Stanley’s product: Stanley's Snake Oil didn't contain any snake oil at all. In 1917, federal investigators seized a shipment of Stanley's Snake Oil and found that it contained primarily mineral oil, fatty oil believed to be from beef, chili peppers, turpentine, and camphor. Stanley was charged for fraudulent marketing and fined $20.

Ever since then, the term “snake oil” has been established in popular culture as a reference to any worthless concoction sold as medicine, and has been extended to describe a wide-ranging degree of fraudulent goods, services, ideas, and activities such as worthless rhetoric in politics.

Embezzlement is a special problem in churches and Christian ministries because trust is so important. That shows the power of trust. And trust is good, but if it’s misused … that’s really a problem. After someone had been convicted of embezzlement … there were church members who still said, “I don’t believe (they) could do this.”

Brock Bell of Brotherhood Mutual writes:

It doesn’t take a hardened criminal to steal money from a church. In fact, those who embezzle are often well-known, well-liked, and completely trusted by fellow church members. They don’t set out to steal hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars. But ample opportunity and a lack of financial controls enable them to do just that.

Yearly timeline of embezzlement from churches and ministries:

1970 $5 million

2000 $19 billion

2022 $59 billion

2050 (Projected $170 billion)

6% of Christian giving is lost to embezzlement

1 in 3 churches suffer embezzlement

27% of embezzled churches don’t report

Possible Preaching Angle:

Unfortunately, the pattern of Judas who stole from the money bag (John 12:4-5), has been copied in many churches and ministries. To avoid this problem, make more than one person responsible for handling and accounting for the money, reconcile bank statements monthly, and schedule regular audits by an outside organization.

A soft-spoken software developer has become one of the leading voices warning the general public about the dangers of cryptocurrency. Molly White grew up like many of her peers--on the internet. In her teenage years she started editing Wikipedia pages about her favorite bands.

But more recently, she’s turned her attention to cryptocurrency, in part because she sees it as a potential threat. Her website covers the litany of scams and scandals related to cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. She started her research by trying to write a Wikipedia article on the term “Web3,” which had been in high circulation on social media by 2021.

I kept seeing the word everywhere, but no one was saying what it meant. Most of my disdain is reserved for the big players who are marketing this to a mainstream audience as though it’s an investment. They often promise it to be a ticket out of a really tough financial spot for people who don’t have many options. It’s very predatory.

She’s known about the technology for a while but it didn’t catch her attention initially because most of the people losing their money were tech-savvy and wealthy. But eventually that changed. White said, “People are putting in money that they can’t afford to lose. They thought this might be their ticket out of poverty or they can finally stop working that minimum-wage job and then all their savings are gone.”

White’s daily posts are so popular, says Wikipedia editor Andrew Lih, because they’re so accessible. “That’s what’s so great about her. She is like, ‘I’m not going to club you over the head with it. Just you read this conveyor belt of ridiculousness and draw your own conclusions.’ And I think that’s been the strength of her blog.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Christian wisdom often requires trusting God enough to avoid risky get-rich-quick schemes in favor of faithful stewardship, even if such stewardship is not considered trendy or popular.

Attorney Anita Harrison recently filed suit on behalf of Illinois consumers to protect them from a dangerous misrepresentation from a major corporation. According to the federal suit, the Kellogg’s corporation is guilty of misleading the public regarding Strawberry Pop Tarts. According to Harrison, they do not contain enough actual strawberries.

The lawsuit reads, “Whether a toaster pastry contains only strawberries or merely some strawberries … is basic front label information consumers rely on when making quick decisions at the grocery store. Strawberries are the Product’s characterizing ingredient … (consumers) believe they are present in an amount greater than is the case."

According to its label, Strawberry Pop Tarts contain 2% or less of “dried strawberries, dried pears, dried apples” and “red 40.” Harris claims that the toaster pastries violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, which specifies as unlawful any “false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

God says it is important to hold people and businesses accountable for their claims in the retail world. “The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him” (Prov 20:23). This is also true in the spiritual realm where pastors, teachers, and believers are to be honest and accountable (Jam. 3:1; 2 Tim. 2:15, Col. 3:9).

Mariam Aly, an assistant professor at Columbia University, has tried everything to keep her students from cheating. In her cognitive neuroscience class, she gives her students a week to complete an open-book exam. And, as part of that exam, the nearly 180 students in the class have to sign an honor code.

But they're still cheating. And dealing with student misconduct is the worst part of her job. Aly says, "It's just awkward and painful for everybody involved. And it's really hard to blame them for it. You do feel disappointed and frustrated. Students are facing unprecedented levels of stress and uncertainty.”

As college moved online in the COVID-19 crisis, many universities are reporting increases, sometimes dramatic ones, in academic misconduct. At Virginia Commonwealth University, reports of academic misconduct soared during the 2020-21 school year, to 1,077--more than three times the previous year's number. At the Ohio State University, reported incidents of cheating were up more than 50% over the year before.

Annie Stearns will be a sophomore this fall at St. Mary's College of California, where misconduct reports doubled last fall over the previous year. During the pandemic, the challenges of learning online were entwined with social isolation and additional family responsibilities. On top of that, tutoring services and academic resources scaled back or moved online. Some students, facing Zoom burnout, stopped asking for help altogether. Stearns explains, “If you're in class, and then you have to go to office hours, that's another Zoom meeting. And if you have to go to the writing center, that's another Zoom meeting. People would get too overwhelmed with being on video calls and just opt out.”

The story goes on to say, “We're going through such an unprecedented time that (cheating is) bound to happen. They prefer to take the shortcut and risk getting caught than have an email conversation with their professor because they're too ashamed to be like, 'I need assistance.’”

Possible Preaching Angle:

We are living in unique and extremely stressful times. Each of us will be tested in various ways, whether in academic honesty, sexual purity, substance abuse, apathy, depression, or anger issues. We must keep trusting God and lean on his strength and his Spirit to “pass the test.”